Listen carefully. I am being completely honest. Any god that would condemn someone to eternal punishment for being themselves and not harming others
would have absolutely no idea how to make a proper heaven. I'd rather have absolute nothingness then be stuck eternally in whatever horrible version
of heaven that kind of god would construct.

In other words, you continuing to tell me I am going to hell is only serving as relief. Thank god!

I'm not religious nor do I wish to control what anyone's preferred hole is....but homosexuality is a sexual fetish and as such, can be
reversed or one can choose not to partake in the behavior. Period.

Period. Too funny. Nothing to see here folks move along.

This explains what sexual orientation is (not fetish), and the general consensus of professionals is it's not something one can just turn off.

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual
orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who
share those attractions.

Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex
to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having
emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of
one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women).

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian
orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation,
no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Homosexuality: As with masturbation, homosexuality, once considered abnormal by the medical profession, has not been considered a disorder
for more than three decades. It is widely recognized as a sexual orientation that is present from childhood. An estimated 4 to 5% of adults are
involved exclusively in homosexual relationships throughout their lives, and an additional 2 to 5% of people periodically engage in sex with someone
of the same sex (bisexuality). Adolescents may experiment with same-sex play, but this experimentation does not necessarily indicate an enduring
interest in homosexual or bisexual activity as adults

...encouraging all men to act like women (using beauty products, perfume, shaving their bodies, etc)
...encouraging all women to be "Feminists" emasculating men, dressing, working, drinking, smoking like men
...as well as the big promotion now of Lesbianism in music
...television serial dramas

You know for someone claiming to be so pro individualism, you sure do a lot of discriminating against it!!

Can't you see that they're using Homosexuality to help destroy Christianity? To destroy Individualism?

No matter how you slice it, the majority of people will always see homos as odd/wrong/disgusting. Doesn't matter how long they've been around or how
much you try to convince yourself that its okay...the fact is, men should not act effeminate and women should not dress to look like Drew Carey. Ask
any straight father if they'd like a gay son and I bet you 99.9% will say ...not just no but, hell no!

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
No matter how you slice it, the majority of people will always see homos as odd/wrong/disgusting. Doesn't matter how long they've been around or how
much you try to convince yourself that its okay...the fact is, men should not act effeminate and women should not dress to look like Drew Carey. Ask
any straight father if they'd like a gay son and I bet you 99.9% will say ...not just no but, hell no!

edit on 8-2-2013 by
Unidentified_Objective because: (no reason given)

Irrelevant conclusion much? The majority of people he says!. Please google "argumentum ad populum" Do you know even know what a fallacy is? hahaha
unreal.

I'm not sure how many actual gay men you know, or whether you've really seen what a lot of gay and bisexual men like, but "effeminate" doesn't
really apply.

A lot of gay eroticism can actually be called an appreciation of masculinity.

Many people don't even know where their most butch iconography comes from.
Muscles and tattoos, leather and Beefcake ...
Sword and sandal hunks in Ben Hur, and the Spartans.
Where did it all come from?

Ha, if only they knew
What they consider "butch masculinity" came from gay iconography!
But ... shh...

Also, haven't some animals been found to be gay? Are you saying a bird (example) would go out of it's way to be a homosexual bird and to sin? I think
if animals do it that shows it's pretty "natural"

Animals don't have a soul nor the concept of morals, or of God. So you're saying you'd rather act like a brute beast instead of a Child of God?

Animals don't have souls huh? And we have one? I would like to know how you figured that one out, and if you have the proof. Ironically, animals seem
to act more like Children of God, and Children of God seem to act more like brute beasts. Btw, all "creation" is "of God". Maybe not your brand of
God, but someone else's for sure.

Originally posted by lupodigubbio
Animals don't have souls huh? And we have one? I would like to know how you figured that one out, and if you have the proof. Ironically, animals seem
to act more like Children of God, and Children of God seem to act more like brute beasts. Btw, all "creation" is "of God". Maybe not your brand
of God, but someone else's for sure.

I'm also interested in the answers for these questions. On top of those questions, I would also like
to know what a soul is.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
No matter how you slice it, the majority of people will always see homos as odd/wrong/disgusting. Doesn't matter how long they've been around or how
much you try to convince yourself that its okay...the fact is, men should not act effeminate and women should not dress to look like Drew Carey. Ask
any straight father if they'd like a gay son and I bet you 99.9% will say ...not just no but, hell no!

edit on 8-2-2013 by
Unidentified_Objective because: (no reason given)

gay marriage passed by popular vote in 3 states last election, and trending in polls shows homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted. It seems
to me you will be sitting on the wrong side of history very soon.

Originally posted by lupodigubbio
Animals don't have souls huh? And we have one? I would like to know how you figured that one out, and if you have the proof. Ironically, animals seem
to act more like Children of God, and Children of God seem to act more like brute beasts. Btw, all "creation" is "of God". Maybe not your brand of
God, but someone else's for sure.

I'm also interested in the answers for these questions. On top of those questions, I would also like to
know what a soul is.

i keep going back to the quantum physics thing. jesus said heaven was already here, and that people just had to be able to see it, which unfortunately
is hampered by our bodies. i think paul said it like
"for now we see in a glass darkly"
so i went with the idea that it's a 4th dimension that exists simultaneously with the rest of creation, and is only nearly impossible for us to see
because our eyes are designed to only see 3 dimensions. to me, that means that all life is also simultaneously existing 4th dimensionally, including
animals.

the soul is actually different than the spirit
the soul is the breath or energy that keeps your body in this dimension.
the spirit is your actual, 4th dimensional body. it is eternal.

to resolve this in scientific terms, i appeal to the explanation of Carl Sagan

lol, it was an interesting theory, I can't say I agree or disagree, but it's something to consider.

did you recognize the surreptitious titles? cause that's the big clue.
the serpent title of enki, has countless applications. for example, the word seraph, which means serpent or fiery flying serpent such as a dragon, is
also the name of an angelic race--the seraphim, who surround the throne of god. if you're doing a double take right about now, imagine what i did when
i realized this.
next it applies to dna. countless ancient representations, many of them right from ancient sumer where the garden of eden (or at least an access to
it) was located.

further examples are, moses raising a serpent on a staff so people would know where to go to get medicine / healing from the serpent bites. later,
jesus refers to himself, metaphorically, as the serpent raised on moses' staff to bring healing to the people. this is also the caduceus and the rod
of asclepius (which see). i also think it's the ankh of the egyptians.

in effect, enki was a doctor of medicine, a geneticist, a creator of life, a healer. he created many of the lifeforms on this planet, including
humans.
the word serpent also has connections to the word for sorcery, however, it doesn't mean magic, it means medicine, life creation, healing. later in
the book of revelations the word sorceries is used in a totally different application. it was referenced as pharmacopeia but given a negative
connotation, suggesting that in that case, it was medicine being applied in a negative fashion, rather than for healing or life, the bad guys were
using it to kill and cause suffering and disease.

the accuser is the law. enlil gave the law. thus, enlil is the accuser. enki offers a route of escape from the law of sin (sin was a moon god.
enlil was the moon god. theres more but it gets into stuff like menustration cycle which is same as lunar cycle), which is the law of death for
humans. thus enki is jesus as the savior of humans, i think. so far that seems to be the case.

p.s. this is why jesus could say he was jehovah, because in the torah, the jewish people knew him as jehovah on several occassions, such as when he
rescued noah, created humans, confused the languages at babel (almost sounds like tongues on the day of pentecost) and so on. however, he was not
enlil or anu, thus he could say heavenly father, referring to anu, and still be talking about jehovah. all the confusion surrounding the OT and its
contradictions, just melts away once you realize what you're looking at. was jesus god? yep. was anu god? yep. was enlil god? yep. at least, in
torah they are all called jehovah.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.